Do "animal styles" make sense?

[Former castleva]

At first,this is not supposed to be a sad attempt to be funny or troll.
I´d just like to kickstart a discussion of some sort.

So basically I was just interested what you think about making up a MA on some animal´s defensive mechanisms.
After all,is it reasonable? We´re not tigers,birds,much less snakes (in terms of classification,we would come closest to tigers,close ancestry with primates not being mentioned) Just to make this easy for those who did not notice yet.
Sure those animals can be all effective and even graceful in terms of backing themselves up,but that´s what they have perfectly adapted to do.Is it logical to conclude that since a tiger as an example (or even a purely mythological dragon) is strong for it´s needs,we should imitate it (with great modification of course) ? Not to even mention an insect.
Well?

[joedoe]

Sure that holds if you are trying to mimick the actions of the animals exactly, however the movements are adapted to the human body. I think the most important thing to get out of animal-based training is not necessarily the movements themselves but more the attitude/mindset/tactics/philosophy embodied by the animal style.

[Former castleva]

I see.
Could you elaborate on the mindset of a certain animal style?
Besides this,my key point goes (sorry if I did not make it clear enough) whether it is,and how reasonable/"justified" the thing is?
Like,sure they have to be adapted to humans,but how much can you get out of it with a human physique?

[Serpent]

I see training animal styles as an attempt to recreate the methodology of the weapons they use (i.e. a tiger claw attack rather than a fist) but also, and perhaps more importantly, to try to embody the intent and the spirit of the animal in question.

If you just try to mimic an animal verbatim while you fight you'll end up in the Paulie Zink School Of Idiots!

[Former castleva]

Thank you both.

I understand,and if I do not,it seems to me there is a cultural liking towards previously mentioned tiger as an example.
I´m a bit skeptical about the idea of adopting the spirit and intent of the species itself,I´m not meaning literally of course.
I suppose the idea of becoming one with the spirit of the creature in question could be considered honorable,and it could offer a psychological boost.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Former castleva
I see.
Could you elaborate on the mindset of a certain animal style?
Besides this,my key point goes (sorry if I did not make it clear enough) whether it is,and how reasonable/"justified" the thing is?
Like,sure they have to be adapted to humans,but how much can you get out of it with a human physique?

Well, for example, the tiger embodies strength and power and in attack is always aggressive. The snake embodies striking speed and accuracy, as well as sinuous movement.

Serpent : well said

[Oso]

What joedoe said.

PLUS

extrapolation, which may just be a single word for what joedoe said.


anyway...


The 3 animal forms I have are 'crane', 'tiger' and 'combo' (having elements/moves attributed to the leopard, snake and dragon).

These forms build on each other. Crane emphasizes handwork. Tiger emphasizes power generation and a shifting in and out of range w/ strong but simple deflecting and striking movements and some throws/takedowns. Combo takes the footwork up several notches from leopard and has somewhat more intricate handwork with a fair amount of locking from dragon, and point striking from the snake.

These things could be figured out w/o the correlation to the animal.

My real question is WHY? Why exactly did they look to the animals? If history serves us correctly (which it usually does not) the weapon skills were first: bow, spear etc. So, man had figured out how to efficiently dispatch these animals. Why did they then look to them for martial applications?

There are many simple answers to this question but they just don't really satisfy me.

My understanding is that it wasn't just the Chinese. The Tibetens surely looked at them (hop gar's crane and ape story comes to mind). And a buddy of mine went to a seminar on a native African martial art and they mimicked Lions and Elephants.

good topic if we can keep it here...

[Former castleva]

"My understanding is that it wasn't just the Chinese. The Tibetens surely looked at them (hop gar's crane and ape story comes to mind). And a buddy of mine went to a seminar on a native African martial art and they mimicked Lions and Elephants."

Stuff like elephants serves as an excellent example of something that goes all over my head.
There does not seem to be any connection to take use of whatsoever.Of course,elephants,while calm and wise,can also be furious but unfortunately for us,we are not quite as big.
Someone who knows his/her biology might note that should a human be able to fight like an elephant,laws of nature would require him to turn into a creature resembling it very closely.
If great physical attributes and nature should be what we´re after,one might as well go for dinosaurs.

[Oso]

The only 'elephant' move in any form I have is this:

the hands/arms are in front of the body, parallel to each other and sweep up in front of the upper torso/head in a counterclockwise motion with a flanking cross step, sweeping aside a strike and then sweeping back clockwise with a step out of the cross to a horse for a throw.

the imagery is pretty simple. for me the power is from the torso and wtih the elbows seated into the ribs the translation of power to the arms is pretty direct. just like the power from an elephant's neck would translate to the rigidly fixed tusks.

just my take, of course.

There is a tendancy for animal stylists to be pigeonholed into an appropriately shaped animal:

small compact person = leopard

large person = tiger, dragon

tall skinny person = crane

etc., you get my point.



while a physical affinity towards the animal archetype is beneficial to learning the movements well, I have seen way to many instances of people training to learn a specific set of movements linked to a particular animal and sacrafice any attempt at understanding what the other animals have to teach. If you are an animal stylist you need to understand each of the animals because they impart a lesson that you could use against SOMEONE at somepoint.

while a 140 pounder may not be able to fighter tigerish against a 200 lb person they COULD against a smaller person. A quick person may not be a to utilize snake or leopard against a quicker person but they could against a slower person.

so, anyway, I just realize I was ranting a bit....

don't take the 'animal' bit too seriosly but try to figure out what the lesson is. it's just a metaphor.

[Former castleva]

Thanks.

[Oso]

ok, so what's your insight?

I think there is a point and a usefullness to the animal mimicry (spelled correctly this time) but I'm truly curious about the real why. The legendary answers just don't click for me as a 'truth'

[shaolin kungfu]

Would sumo wrestling be considered elephant style?

[Oso]

it just struck me. the participants in this conversation are Finland, US, and Australia.

FC is up really dang late, I'm going to bed and JD and Serp are just getting of work and going to train, or have a beer (equal odds, imo)


funny place this here internet.

peace and g'night.

[Former castleva]

Does not it all that just appear mysterious Oso?

Yes,I´m up really late.Of course for some,this would be the time to get up...
Have a good night.

As for my insight,
I still cannot honestly say that to observe those animals would necessary,in terms of logic,bring one to a conclusion of their importance for man.
But I´m not dissing it,just curious.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Oso
it just struck me. the participants in this conversation are Finland, US, and Australia.

FC is up really dang late, I'm going to bed and JD and Serp are just getting of work and going to train, or have a beer (equal odds, imo)


funny place this here internet.

peace and g'night.

Not quite! I'm just having my lunch. But I'm thinking that some beer might happen tonight - first night off training for ages.